Unsettled family relationships trigger for many family tragedies… Here, everybody still remembers the case of Bujanovac, in Vranje region, a town lost in the middle of the Serbian southern mountains. In Vranje, on March 16, 2008, Boban Mitic, 34, killed his wife, Suzanna, 24, their two children respectively aged of 2 and 3 and their grandmother. Only the third girl, severely injured in the eye and left almost blind, and the grandfather, last arrived on the scene and saved due to the lack of bullets left in Boban’s cartridge, survived this tragic event.

I had decided to tell you about this case: About the open death threats pronounced several times against Suzanna but also against the members of organizations who worked with her. About the inaction of the social services in charge of protecting this family. About the feeling of “SOS Vranje hotline” members who supported this family and met with her one day before the tragedy. Touching and touched staff I had the opportunity to meet with… I had decided to make a specific blog about it. But on second thoughts, why Boban Mitic from Vranje ? Why not Nikola Radosavljević from Jabukovca (www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jabukovac_killings) or Dragan Cedic from Leskovac (www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragan_%C4%8Cedi%C4%87) ?

And at the end, what should be said about these stories, what matters and should be kept from them, more than their details are their conclusions. In Vranje, for example, the conclusion is painful since no lesson has been drawn from the disappearance of this whole family. Despite the loss of these lives, despite the unfairness of the situation, according to the words of an activist, today, « we still cannot help these women in needs ». And she started relating the cases of battered women she’s currently dealing with, threatened of death by their husbands, and unable to find any kind of help facing up this lethal danger. These cases make us run the risk of seeing history repeating itself … And because of this, they deserve to be told. Because at one point, it is necessary to get out the circle of impotence and impunity Vranje represents. The video realized with members of SOS Vranje, summarizing the current situation can be found on the French version of this post, below this one. It cannot leaves us remaining stony-faced and calls for immediate action.

If you are a regular and attentive reader, maybe you have noticed the wordplay which stands for the title of this blog…Remember, “out of circle” is also the name of the organization dealing with domestic violence against the disabled… I therefore take the opportunity to add the video I realized with them, specifically dealing with the use of firearms in this phenomenon of domestic violence. Once against, comments and thoughts are more than welcomed.

S’il n’existe pas d’enquêtes, de chiffres globaux ,exacts, il existe cependant des études, concentrées, qui peuvent donner une idée de l’utilisation de ces armes à feu comme moyen de violence domestique. Dans un rapport intitulé « protection de la famille dans les cas de violence domestique, pratique des cours de Belgrade », publié l’année dernière par le centre des femmes autonomes en collaboration avec le centre de recherche pour l’éducation et la communication des femmes de Nis (ville du Sud Est de la Serbie), la réalité du phénomène apparait. Des 120 affaires de violence domestique jugées par les cours de Belgrade, en 2007,  le tiers prit place dans des foyers qui abritaient une arme.

Dans 19,5 % de ces cas, l’arme était utilisée comme moyen de violence à la maison. Violence psychologique avec des menaces de morts. : l’idée qu’il faille vivre au quotidien en ayant à l’esprit que demain peut-être, les menaces seront mises à exécution et tout sera fini. Violence physique, que l’arme soit utilisée comme objet pour frapper, qu’elle blesse. Ou parfois qu’elle tue, et qu’elle finisse à la une des journaux…

Une autre source utile dans notre quête sur la réalité des armes à feux associées aux violences conjugales, est bien sur le personnel qui travaille avec les conséquences du phénomène : les membres d’associations pour les femmes battues. J’ai rencontré plusieurs fois les activistes du Centre pour les femmes autonomes, qui est bien vite devenu ma visite hebdomadaire régulière. On y est accueilli sur le balcon des femmes, un petit havre de paix de 5 m2… On y sert le café, on y boit du jus de fruit, on y raconte ses histoires…

the women balcony of the Autonomous Women Center

Je vous livre donc leur témoignage quant aux situations de violence domestique armée qu’elles ont pu rencontrer pendant leurs années de labeur. La première vidéo est générale et donne une vue d’ensemble sur le phénomène.

La deuxième pourrait s’intituler « histoires choisies » et regroupe des cas concrets, associés aux cas que j’avais évoqués, avec le médiateur de la République.. vous la retrouverez dans la version anglais de ce post, en dessus de celui ci.

At the Center for counseling against domestic violence, newspapers are read and records are kept. Sad statistics, taken from the « news in brief » section. Considering the frequency, maybe they would fit better in the « society » pages ?

In 2009, the number of injured women by their partners is impressive. The story doesn’t tell if these victims lived under the threat of a gun but they give a clear idea of the size of the phenomenon of domestic violence, and the brutality of the experienced situations. In January, out of the 20 cases reported in the press, 13 women were injured. The next two months counted respectively 6 and 9 wounded women, which represents on average, 2 women wounded a week. In April, this average went up to 1 woman injured every two days, with a record number of 16 cases covered by the press. In summary, the record of this first half of the year isn’t glorious. Out of the 97 cases the press wrote about, dealing with domestic violence, 51 women were wounded. (source http://www.naslovi.net/hronika/).

It’s hard to evaluate the number of cases including a weapon. Because these numbers are gathered by the Center for counseling against domestic violence, which, as I explained before, doesn’t take into account the “firearm” dimension in its analysis;

In these circumstances, this lack of data, I decided to interrogate authorities, in order to test their knowledge of the issue. Therefore, I met with Jecka Nedejkov from the social services of Belgrade. Her office is situated in Zemun, district I’ve talked to you about in a previous blog ( because it’s also the place where the office of « Single mother » is, my first professional meeting ). Two weeks ago, Zemun was making the headlines of newspapers: A man had pulled out his gun in the street and started shooting in the air several times… 

Jeka Nedeljkov is specialized in cases of domestic violence ; She is also the person to see when it comes to situations ending in divorces. She insists :  « No decision dealing with family problems is taken without my consultation ». Guns in domestic violence ? She knows… And explains with a great eloquence and an impressive clearness situations she had and is still dealing with. The pressure, the escalade…

Zorica Mrsevic is specialized in gender issues and works as the Deputy Ombudsman of Serbia. In democracies, this institution is an interface between citizens and their authorities, a platform of defense for the latter against the first. Zorica Mrsevic knows this phenomenon of guns in domestic violence… Her staff inquired on a couple of cases of that matter…

I invite you to have a look at their visual testimonies. You’ll find the video I realized below this post, in the French version of this blog (entitled “les pouvoirs publics parlent de la violence domestique armée”). Suggestions are of course more than welcome!

Au centre de conseil contre la violence domestique, on lit les journaux et on tient les comptes. Tristes comptes, tirés de la rubrique « faits divers ». Vu la fréquence, peut-être auraient-ils plus leur place dans la rubrique « société » ?

En 2009, le nombre de femmes blessées par leurs partenaires est impressionnant. L’histoire ne dit pas si ces victimes vivaient aussi sous la menace d’une arme mais ils donnent une bonne idée de l’ampleur de la violence conjugale physique et de la brutalité des situations vécues ici. En janvier, sur les 20 cas reportés par la presse de violence conjugale, on dénombrait 13 femmes blessées. Les deux mois suivants comptaient respectivement 6 et 9 femmes blessées, ce qui représente, en moyenne, deux femmes par semaine. En avril, cette moyenne montait à 1 femme blessée tous les deux jours, avec un chiffre record de 16 cas couverts par la presse. En somme, le bilan de cette moitie d année 2009 n est pas glorieux. Sur les 97 cas reportés par les journaux, afférant à des cas de violence domestique, 51 femmes ont été blessées. (source http://www.naslovi.net/hronika/). Il est difficile d’estimer le nombre de cas incluant un pistolet. Puisque ces chiffres m’ont été communiqués par le Centre de conseil contre la violence domestique. Qui, comme je vous l’ai déjà expliqué dans un blog précédent, ne tient pas compte du facteur « arme à feu » dans son analyse.

Dans ces circonstances, cette absence de données, j’ai décidé d’interroger les pouvoirs publics, afin de tester leur connaissance sur cette problématique. J’ai donc rencontré Jecka Nedejkov, du service social de la ville de Belgrade. Son bureau est situé dans le district de Zemun, ville dont je vous avais déjà parlé dans un précédent blog ; ( car c’est aussi le lieu de domiciliation des « mères seules » , qui fut ma première visite « professionnelle » ). Il y a deux semaines, Zemun faisait ici le titre des journaux : Un individu a dégainé son arme en pleine rue et a tiré plusieurs fois en l’air… 

Jeka Nedeljkov est spécialisée dans les cas de violence domestique ; Elle gère également  les situations ayant abouti sur un divorce et insiste : « Aucune décision afférant à des cas de problèmes familiaux ne se prend sans ma consultation ». Les armes à feu dans la violence domestique ? Elle connait… Et d’expliquer avec une éloquence et une clarté impressionnantes, les situations qu’elle a pu rencontrer ou qu’elle rencontre encore… La pression, l’escalade…

Zorica Mrsevic est spécialisée dans les questions de genre et travaille au bureau du Médiateur de la République de Serbie. Dans les démocraties, cette institution est une interface entre les citoyens et leurs autorités, une plateforme de défense des premiers face aux seconds. Zorica Mrsevic sait que ce phénomène de violence domestique armée existe. Son équipe a même enquêté sur le sujet..

Je vous propose de retrouver leurs témoignages. Et vous invite bien entendu à réagir !

The problem of women living under the threat of a gun in Serbia lies in the two following questions: How do you acquire a weapon and what are the criteria to refuse it to the applicant?

 First queerness. Of all pieces of information to be submitted to fulfill the gun acquisition application, no medical examination is required. If a certificate indicating that the person knows how to handle a firearm must be submitted by an homologous center, it doesn’t come along with a medical exam, checking out the physical, mental health but also, the integrity of the applicant. Shouldn’t we always make sure that the user of a potentially deadly object has all its capacities to use it with cautiousness and accurately? This is even more true in Serbia where all the persons I met on the way pointed out that men who have come back from wars (today aged between 35-55) were traumatized, brutalized and brutal, sometimes suffering from post traumatic troubles. According to studies led by behavioral psychology, the latter have been recently associated to violent behavior that reproduce the horrors experienced.

 Criteria to refuse a gun also casts doubt on the viability of the process. More or less, they are all oriented toward the potential danger a gun represents in the public space, with in line of sights, the injuries that can be caused to a third party… In this evaluation, the big forgotten group is the very close family members. Thus, according to Article 8, second paragraph of the law on weapons and ammunitions, (amended for the last time in 2005), a gun can’t be delivered for a person convicted of crimes that can be qualified of “grave” (against constitutional order, territorial integrity and sovereignty, high representatives of the State, terrorism… ). If the word is badly chosen, « intermediary crimes » are also obstacles to the acquisition of a firearm ( taking part in fights; kidnapping; rape; robbery; provoking general danger; violent behavior, etc…)

 Other specific provisions deny the access of a firearm to under-aged individuals, to individuals under an on-going criminal procedure, or, more surprising, to individuals who are unable to work… But nothing, nothing on the existence of a past or present situation of domestic violence. In sum, the permit to acquire a firearm will be refused to a person who caused troubles in the public space or to third partes. But the very existence of troubles in family relations, as known as they can be, won’t be a criteria to deny access to a gun. This is regrettable, all the more so the argument isn’t logic : domestic violence, often reported to the police without initiating judicial proceedings, includes the situations mentioned below: fights, marital rapes, violent behaviors creating dangers for others.. all this is, sadly, usual in situations of domestic violence.

 It’s easy to imagine what situations can come out of these negligence. Possibility is given to men, whose eventual pathologies are not detected, to acquire a weapon, setting aside the possible perturbed family relations they can find themselves in… This is even more dramatic when considering the immediacy of the procedure : there’s no investigation regarding the circumstances and reasons for the acquisition of a weapon, and there’s no intermediary period between the delivery of the permit and the acquisition of the weapon. (Article 9 of the law mentioned above). Permit is valid for 5 years, which is quite long considering the fact that individuals’ situations can change dramatically within this period. (Article 11)

 Finally, there’s a need to turn now to the criminal code. It’s obvious that sanction mechanisms following perpetrating of domestic violence, detailed on article 194, are very light. Thus, direct brutalization or threat to attempt to the life of a family member is punished of a year in jail, this time being tripled in the case of a dangerous object or firearm was used. But there’s no specific provision clearly asking the seizure of the weapon in that very particular case….

 The changes we fight for consist in linking guns and domestic violence legislations.

  Making a record of domestic violence becoming a criteria for denying the access to a gun in the first place. Seizing the weapon in cases when domestic violence exists, in a second step. And finally, considering the number of domestic violence ending in killing of women or families, in the heat of the moment, on an impulse, it is necessary to refine the procedure to take better account of individual situations: by realizing a circumstance inquiry with family members, neighbors, competent institutions ; By letting a month period passes between the acquisition of the permit and the acquisition of the gun; By checking that mental health is stable; Finally, the prorogation of the permit should be submitted for exam every two years, to ensure a better follow-up of the evolution of families’ situations.

My batteries being recharged after my visit to « Self-Supporting mothers », I told myself maybe the job would be easier than I first thought…. Easy to say!

The next day was marked on my agenda with a red cross. The Counseling center against domestic violence, one of the biggest associations of Belgrade, having a hotline for battered women at its disposal, and managing two shelters for victims of domestic violence. (out of the nine existing in Serbia).  I had hoped this encounter would be a gold mine of information. What a disappointment!

 First they explained to me their vision as regards the use of “guns” in the phenomenon of domestic violence: « firearms don’t represent a specific threat, a particular danger. Agressors can use a knife, a chair. Every object can be a source of violence and death, it only depends of the frequency and strength with which they are used ». I try to refocus and explain that, to me, it’s hard, almost impossible to forbid everyone from having any kind of object at home. But that a firearm, on the contrary, is an evident means to produce violence. o explain that it is less normal to find in a house, when comparing to chairs or knives. And that because of that, it’s easier to eradicate this aspect of domestic violence than any other.  

 When I started inquiring about the reality of the phenomenon, concrete case histories, they answered that, apart from the regular newspaper headlines relating to family killings, nothing came to their minds. No, they didn’t know of any particular case, among their folders, dealing with this matter. They explained domestic violence has increased a great deal after the wars and the return home of destroyed husbands, traumatized, who reproduced at home what they had experienced on the battle field. And if sometimes, they could have brought back guns with them, it was only to protect themselves and deal with post-traumatic stress that wore them down.

 Of course, women could be afraid. A violent husband, who sleeps with a gun hidden under his pillow… But let’s not have them worried, it wouldn’t be against them that the firearm would be used in the first place.

 How to interprete this gap ? Research shows that 10% of shelters’ population who had to flee from brutal behaviours also lived under the threat of a gun, how was it possible to explain that in the middle of the capital, Belgrade, this number was close to zero? It was only gradually throughout the interview that I began to see the answer. I learned that, in a mind not to « re-victimize » the women who came to seek help, the opening of a folder took place only after one single interview, and the request by the women themselves for additional meetings. Even more surprising, an employee explained to me, « We don’t want them to feel oppressed by our questions so we don’t ask any. We don’t ask for additional details. We take what we are given without asking for more ».

 I feel like adding : «What about what you are not given ? It doesn’t exist? ». Collecting information is a crucial step to understanding the multiple facets of a problem thoroughly. It’s only once the problem is properly exposed that the time to address it can come. To me, asking questions with the aim to put under the light the totality of suffering an individual has experienced isn’t an intrusive behavior towards victims. Of course, there’s something about the way to question that must include a great deal of delicacy. I think revealing the whole truth and the whole facts is positive to the individual, who can then free themselves from the previous traumatizing experiences they lived through; recognize, point out, and « digest » all facets of one’s past, then try to turn over a new leaf. It’s also positive for those around them, because certain individual situations are in fact, when looked at closely, societal pathologies. And to apprehend them, it is then necessary to develop global solutions. In this sense, domestic violence, with guns or without, is a societal disease that needs to be given a proper diagnostic. Collecting information is, in that sense, essential.  

 So what was true and what was false ? Was I trying to photograph a phenomenon that didn’t exist in reality, apart from headlines newspapers ? The next two visits were going to point out the reality of the phenomenon… Stay connected, to be followed on the next blog. .